Academic Literature

  • – A Regime Conceals Its Erasure of Indigenous Armenian Culture- Simon Maghakyan
  • “The New Tears of Araxes” is written by Sarah Pickman, a University of Chicago student, who was the only American reporter to cover the tragedy when she interned for Archaeology Magazine. Producer and narrator Simon Maghakyan, who is among America’s top 20 college students according to USA TODAY (April 24, 2006), hopes the film will break a year of ignorance and silence.  When asked why others should care, Maghakyan quotes Martin Luther King Jr. as saying, “Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere.”
  • Simon Maghakyan shares his decade-long awareness work and investigation, which culminated in a groundbreaking February 2019 publication, into a dangerous dictatorship’s secret erasure of 28,000 ancient monuments. Intended for specialists in the history of the Eastern Parts of Historical Armenia, their indigenous population, immigrant tribes as well as all our compatriots wishing to increase their knowledge of the occupied part of their homeland.
  • Joshua Kucera. (2021). What happened to the church? | Eurasianet. Retrieved June 27, 2021, from
  • Kirakosyan, L. V. (2019). The issues of the archaeological complex conservation in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 698, 033049. Armenian)
  • Mkrtchyan, G. (2021). Fears for Armenian Cultural Heritage in Karabakh. INSTITUTE FOR WAR & PEACE REPORTING.
    The article discusses the results of practical and preventive measures for the preservation and conservation of the historical environment of architectural and archaeological complexes undertaken by us in recent years during the excavations of Tigranakert in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is important to note that the conservation of complexes is considered as an important part of the research process of the monument. The article describes the strategic directions and methods of conservation and restoration of objects, which are formed in accordance with the theory of protection of monuments and the principles established by the international charters on conservation and restoration of monuments. The presented materials and recommendations can be useful in preserving the historical and architectural heritage of the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
    The work treats the history and historical monuments of almost entire Northern Artsakh, that constitutes the north-eastern part of Historical Armenia.
    This chapter examines cultural contestation between former Soviet states, focussing on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the period 1992–1994 over the territory of Nagorno Karabakh. The ceasefire, signed on 5 May 1994, formally gives sovereignty over the enclave to Azerbaijan. Yet, Armenian armed forces are in control. The enclave has its own administrative structure based on Armenian law. The inhabitants are mainly ethnic Armenians (95%) but Nagorno Karabakh is also home to Assyrian, Greek, Russian, Kurdish and other minorities. Several reports mention the destruction of cultural heritage in the district. According to Azerbaijani authorities, traces of Azerbaijani cultural heritage are erased, for example, the replacing of inscriptions on monuments by Armenian inscriptions.
  • Հարությունյան Վ., Հայկական ճարտարապետության պատմություն, «Լույս» պետական հրատ․, Երևան, 1992։
  • Мкртчян Ш., Историко-архитектурные памятники Нагорного Карабаха (второе издание), Парберакан, Ереван, 1989.
  • Саркисян М., Из истории градостроительства Шуши, Армянский Центр стратегических и национальных исследований, Ереван, 1996.
  • Hovhannisyan, S. (2004). Ararat. Nahapet hanragitaran.
  • Sargsyan, S. (2019). Armenian monuments and remains in Artsakh,
  • Dum-Tragut J., Maranci C., La Porta S., Armenian Cultural-Religious Heritage of Artsakh (Major Sites in the Territories Currently Occupied by Azerbaijan), Holy Etchmiadzin 2021


  • Newson, P., & Young, R. (Eds.). (2017). Post-Conflict Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Rebuilding Knowledge, Memory and Community from War-Damaged Material Culture. – (Chapter 9-case study NK)
  • Nowlan J (1993) Cultural property and the Nuremberg war crimes trial. Humanitäres Völkerrecht 4:221–223
  • O’Keefe R (2014) Protection of cultural property. In: Clapham A, Gaeta P (eds) The Oxford handbook of international law in armed conflict. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 492–520
  • Walasek H (ed) (2015) Bosnia and the destruction of cultural heritage. Routledge, Farnham/Burlington
  • Novic E (2016) The concept of cultural genocide: an international law perspective. Oxford University Press, New York
  • Moses AD (2010) Raphael Lemkin, culture and the concept of genocide. In Bloxham D, Dirk Moses A (eds) The Oxford handbook of genocide studies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 19–41
    Post-Conflict Archaeology and Cultural Heritage draws together a series of papers from archaeological and heritage professionals seeking positive, pragmatic and practical ways to deal with conflict-damaged sites. For instance, by showing that conflict-damaged cultural heritage and archaeological sites are a valuable resource rather than an inevitable casualty of war, and suggesting that archaeologists use their skills and knowledge to bring communities together, giving them ownership of, and identification with, their cultural heritage.
    The book is a mixture of the discussion of problems, suggested planning solutions and case studies for both archaeologists and heritage managers. It will be of interest to heritage professionals, archaeologists and anyone working with post-conflict communities, as well as anthropology, archaeology, and heritage academics and their students at a range of levels.
  • J & Aronsson, I.-L. (2016). Heritage as life-values: A study of the cultural heritage concept. Current Science, 110(11), 2091–2098.
    This article aims to contribute to the discussion through studies of the heritage concept from a theoretical and analytical perspective, starting from a Swedish and European view on heritage; how it came into being, established itself and developed, and finally found itself called into question and at risk of being discarded. Our argument is that the present heritage concept would benefit from the introduction of the concept of life-values, not in order to replace it, but to enrich and take heritage into the 21st century.
  • Hladik, J. (2000). Reporting system under the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 82(840), 1001–1016.
  • Patrick J. Boylan, Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property for the Protection in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention of 1954), Paris, UNESCO (1993), Report ref. CLT-93/WS/12.
  • Merryman, J. H. (1990). “Protection” of the Cultural “Heritage”?1. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 38(suppl_1), 513–522.
  • Hodder, I. (2010). Cultural Heritage Rights: From Ownership and Descent to Justice and Well-being. Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4), 861–882.
  • SAXER, M. (2012). The Moral Economy of Cultural Identity: Tibet, Cultural Survival, and the Safeguarding of Cultural Heritage. Civilisations, 61(1), 65–81.
  • Okumu, O. S. (2016). The concept of intangible cultural heritage in Kenya. In A.-M. Deisser & M. Njuguna (Eds.), Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage in Kenya (1st ed., pp. 45–58). UCL Press.
  • Zan, L., & Baraldi, S. B. (2012). Managing Cultural Heritage in China: A View from the Outside. The China Quarterly, 210, 456–481.
  • Kila, J. D. (2013). Inactive, Reactive, or Pro-Active?: Cultural Property Crimes in the Context of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, 1(4), 319–342.
  • Palumbo, G. (2005). The State of Iraq’s Cultural Heritage in the Aftermath of the 2003 War. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 12(1), 225–238.
  • Rico, T., & Lababidi, R. (2017). Extremism in Contemporary Cultural Heritage Debates about the Muslim World. Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism, 14(1), 95–105.
    This article considers the way that heritage preservation perpetuates its own mythologies, affecting public and disciplinary debates, with regard to popular representations of “Islamic” practices of heritage management and preservation. It suggest that representations of heritage practices in the broader Muslim world have been largely constructed on very few and regionally select reports that present Muslim communities as destructive stewards of heritage resources, including what is perceived to be their own heritage as well as the heritage of other groups within Muslim- dominant territories.
  • Quntar, S. A. (2013). Syrian Cultural Property in the Crossfire: Reality and Effectiveness of Protection Efforts. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, 1(4), 348–351.
    The article highlights a number of significant issues of great importance to the ongoing threat to cultural property and current protection efforts.
  • Danti, M. D. (2015). Ground-Based Observations of Cultural Heritage Incidents in Syria and Iraq. Near Eastern Archaeology, 78(3), 132–141.
    ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (ASOR CHI) uses a wide range of ground-based observations to report on the cultural heritage situation in Syria and northern Iraq. Coupled with analyses of high-resolution satellite imagery, these sources of information provide a powerful method for quickly and accurately assessing the ongoing crisis for the US Department of State and alerting the public to the woeful loss of Near Eastern cultural heritage. Looting, combat damage, deliberate destruction of heritage places, vandalism, and uncontrolled development are all taking terrible tolls on heritage throughout the region. While all major combatants and populations are linked to the destruction, non-state Jihadi-Salafi groups such as ISIL, Al Qaeda-affiliates such as Jabhat al-Nusra, and other Islamist extremists are by far the most brazen and egregious offenders with overt policies of destroying and liquidating cultural assets to support terrorism and to conduct cultural cleansing on a scale and intensity tantamount to a global war on culture.
  • Harmanşah, Ö. (2015). ISIS, Heritage, and the Spectacles of Destruction in the Global Media. Near Eastern Archaeology, 78(3), 170–177.
    This paper focuses on ISIS’s recent destruction of archaeological heritage in Iraq and its (self-) representation in the global media. It is argued that the Islamic State’s destruction of archaeological sites and museums as well as historical monuments and local shrines can be seen as a form of place-based violence that aims to annihilate the local sense of belonging, and the collective sense of memory among local communities, to whom the heritage belongs. It is also suggested that the Islamic State coordinates and choreographs these destructions as mediatic spectacles of violence aimed at objects and sites of heritage, which take place as re-enactments or historical performances that are communicated to us through ISIS’s own image-making apparatus that utilizes advanced technologies of visualization and communication.
  • Quntar, S. A., Hanson, K., Daniels, B. I., & Wegener, C. (2015). Responding to a Cultural Heritage Crisis: The Example of the Safeguarding the Heritage of Syria and Iraq Project. Near Eastern Archaeology, 78(3), 154–160.
    This article discusses the strategies employed by the Safeguarding the Heritage of Syria and Iraq (SHOSI) Project to assist in-country professionals and civil society activists in their attempts to protect key heritage sites. The approach combines the empowerment of Syrians and Iraqis in decision-making about their heritage while supporting them with the logistics and resources necessary to carry out emergency efforts. It demonstrates one case study of how on-the-ground protection can be achieved.
  • Lababidi, R., & Qassar, H. (2016). Did They Really Forget How to Do It? Iraq, Syria, and the International Response to Protect a Shared Heritage. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, 4(4), 341–362.
    This article discusses the systematic protection of cultural heritage in times of war, set by the international community under the lead of UNESCO. The argument here is built upon a comparative analysis of the damage that Iraqi and Syrian heritage have suffered and of the international response to mitigate it, especially in the context of “shared heritage.” This article suggests developing a response that can practically protect the cultural heritage of countries in crisis.
  • National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia. (2018, 3 2). List of Intangible Cultural Heritage Sites.Retrieved from National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia:
  • Logan, W. S. (2007). Closing Pandora’s box: human rights conundrums in cultural heritage protection. In Cultural heritage and human rights(pp. 33-52). Springer, New York, NY.
  • Blake, J. (2011). Taking a human rights approach to cultural heritage protection. Heritage & Society, 4(2), 199-238.
  • Kakiuchi, Emiko. “Cultural heritage protection system in Japan: current issues and prospects for the future.” National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies(2014): 2.
  • Kioussi, Anastasia, Maria Karoglou, Kyriakos Labropoulos, Asterios Bakolas, and Antonia Moropoulou. “Integrated documentation protocols enabling decision making in cultural heritage protection.” Journal of Cultural Heritage14, no. 3 (2013): e141-e146.
  • Forrest, C. (2012). International law and the protection of cultural heritage.
  • Müller, Markus M. “Cultural heritage protection: Legitimacy, property, and functionalism.” International Journal of Cultural Property7, no. 2 (1998): 395-409.
  • Casini L (2011) “Italian Hours”: the globalisation of cultural property law. Int J Constit Law 9(2):369–393
  • Jakubowski A (2015) State succession in cultural heritage. Oxford University Press, Oxford


  • Fidanyan, M. (2013). Destruction of Jugha Necropolis with Armenian Khachqars (Cross-Stones) in Azerbaijan. Journal of Art Crime, 10, 57. – (Nachijevan)

Protection of Cultural Heritage in International Law

  • 1954 Hague Convention | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2021, from
  • Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights/ Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights –
  • UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)/ General comment no. 21, Right of everyone to take part in cultural life –
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 2199 – the protection of culture and cultural heritage in conflict areas as a humanitarian and security issue
  • UN Security Council resolution 2253 (2015)- develops a number of sanctions designed to prevent terrorism  including by preventing trade in cultural property –
  • UN Security Council resolution 2347 (2017)- condemns the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage by terrorist groups-
  • UN Security Council resolution 2368 (2017)- Condemns the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts, and the looting and smuggling of cultural property from archaeological sites, museums, libraries, archives, and other sites, notably by terrorist groups.
  • United Nations General Assembly- Resolution adopted on 28 May 2015/ 69/281. Saving the cultural heritage of Iraq-
  • (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from
  • (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from UNESCO:
  • (1976). Recommendation on Participation by the People at Large in Cultural Life and Their Contribution to It.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from
  • (2001). UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from
  • (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from
  • (2003). UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from
  • (2005). Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from
  • (2005). Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.Paris: UNESCO.
  • (2018, 02 18). List of Intangible Cultural Heritage.Retrieved from Intengible Cultural Heritage: []=00080&multinational=3&display1=inscriptionID#tabs
  • (2018, 02 16). World Heritage List.Retrieved from World Heritage Convention:
  • (n.d.). Conventions.Retrieved October 14, 2018, from UNESCO Standard-Setting Instruments:
  • UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. (n.d.). Dolma making and sharing tradition, a marker of cultural identity.Retrieved from
  • UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. (n.d.). Dolma making and sharing tradition, a marker of cultural identity.Retrieved from
  • United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. (2015, October 14). Retrieved from International Religious Freedom Report for 2014:
  • United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. (2016). Retrieved from AZERBAIJAN 2016 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT:
  • (Protecting Cultural Heritage Threads through United Nations Peacekeeping Strategy, Secretary-General Tells Yale University Colloquium | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, n.d.)
  • Charters and other doctrinal texts—International Council on Monuments and Sites. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2021, from
  • Venice Charter—Preamble (Congress of Preservation 1964)—Charta von Venedig. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2021, from
  • Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, (2005)
  • European Parliament. (2006, February 16). European Parliament resolution on cultural heritage in Azerbaijan.Retrieved from
  • Hladik, J. (2000). Reporting system under the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 82(840), 1001–1016.


  • International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2021, from
    The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC) is a global organisation for conservation and restoration professionals with over two thousand members in over fifty countries. IIC seeks to promote the knowledge, methods and working standards needed to protect and preserve historic and artistic works throughout the world.
  • Home—International Council on Monuments and Sites. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2021, from
    ICOMOS  is a professional association that works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage places around the world. Now headquartered in Charenton-le-Pont, France, ICOMOS was founded in 1965 in Warsaw as a result of the Venice Charter of 1964, and offers advice to UNESCO on World Heritage Sites.
  • Blue Shield International—Protecting cultural heritage. (n.d.). Blue Shield International. Retrieved July 7, 2021, from
    The Blue Shield, formerly the International Committee of the Blue Shield, is an international organization founded in 1996 to protect the world’s cultural heritage from threats such as armed conflict and natural disasters. Originally intended as the “cultural equivalent of the Red Cross, its name derives from the blue shield symbol used to signify cultural sites protected by the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict.